Patna High Court
Ramji Ram @ Ramaji RamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The Court held that an unexecuted agreement to commit a crime does not itself constitute an offence and therefore granted conditional pre‑arrest bail pending mediation.
Summary
Ramji Ram applied for pre‑arrest bail after being implicated in a FIR (Kateya P.S. Case No. 252 of 2025) for allegedly issuing a false employment letter and taking Rs 5,50,000 from the informant’s son, offences charged under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 336(4), 340(1) and 340(2) of the Bihar Negotiable Act. Both the petitioner and the informant admitted the money exchange and expressed willingness to settle the dispute amicably through mediation. The High Court, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Deepak Kumar Shrivas v. State of Chhattisgarh, held that an agreement to commit a crime, which fails to materialise, does not itself constitute an offence. Consequently, the Court directed the matter be referred to the District Mediation Centre, granted interim protection to the petitioner, and ordered that pre‑arrest bail be released subject to conditions set by the District Court. The interim protection will lapse if the petitioner fails to appear before the stipulated date, and the application was thereafter disposed.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate grant of pre‑arrest bail in a case involving alleged fraud and false employment letter under the specified sections of the Bihar Negotiable Act?
- Does an agreement to commit an offence, which remains unexecuted, constitute a criminal offence warranting denial of bail?
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- false employment letter
- fraud
- mediation
- criminal procedure
- Bihar Negotiable Act
- settlement
- interim protection
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2775 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-252 Year-2025 Thana- KATEYA District- Gopalganj
======================================================
Ramji Ram @ Ramaji Ram, aged about 44 years, Male, S/O Late Harihar
Ram R/O Vill.- Dube Belwa (Belwa Dube), P.S.- Kateya, District-Gopalganj
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Satyendra Rai, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Madhura Nand Jha, APP
For the informant : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
5 01-04-2026 Heard Mr. Satyendra Rai, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Madhura Nand Jha, learned APP
for the State and Mr. Abhishek Singh, learned counsel for the
informant.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Kateya P.S. Case No. 252 of 2025 registered for the
offence(s) punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3),
336(4), 340(1) and 340(2) of the BNS.
3. As per the allegations made in the FIR, the
petitioner is accused of providing a false employment letter
under the pretext of securing a job for the informant’s son. In
this regard, the petitioner allegedly took a total sum of
Rs.5,50,000/- and thereafter he has not returned the said amount
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2775 of 2026(5) dt.01-04-2026
2/5
to the informant.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and the informant jointly submitted that a sum of
Rs.5,50,000/- was exchanged between the parties. Both parties
acknowledge that in light of the allegations made in the FIR, the
said arrangement may be considered void as being immoral in
nature. In these circumstances, the parties to buy peace of mind
have expressed their willingness to sit together and resolve the
dispute amicably outside the Court.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties, on instruction, submitted that the petitioner
and informant have agreed to appear before the learned District
Court at 10:30 A.M. on or before 08.04.2026, so that the matter
can be referred to the District Mediation Centre.
6. Heard the parties.
7. This court finds that if two persons agreed to
commit an act which is an offence in eye of law and the
agreement failed because the crime could not be committed, it
cannot be said that it constitutes an offence when the agreement
itself was an offence. Law in this regard is well settled by the
Apex Court in the case of Deepak Kumar Shrivas and Anr. vs.
State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. reported in (2024) 3 SCC 601 in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2775 of 2026(5) dt.01-04-2026
3/5
para nos. 15 and 16 which are as under:
“15. A reading of the entire material on
record clearly reflects that it was totally an unlawful
contract between the parties where money was
being paid for securing a job in the government
department(s) or private sector. Apparently, a suit
for recovery could not have been filed for the said
purpose and even if it could be filed, it could be
difficult to establish the same where the payment
was entirely in cash. Therefore, Respondent 6 found
out a better medium to recover the said amount by
building pressure on the appellant and his brother
by lodging the FIR. Under the threat of criminal
prosecution, maybe the appellant would have tried
to sort out and settle the dispute by shelving out
some money.
16. In conclusion, certain key
observations from the factual matrix warrant a
closer reflection. Prima facie, the conduct exhibited
by the parties involved appears tainted with
suspicion, casting a shadow over the veracity of
their claims. The report from the previous inquiry
reflects a convoluted landscape and unveils a trail
of unethical, maybe even criminal behaviour from
both parties. The unexplained inordinate delay in
bringing these allegations to the police's attention
despite knowledge of previous inquiry, raises even
more doubts and adds a layer of scepticism to the
authenticity of the claims. The facts stated, as well
as the prior inquiry, reveal a shared culpability
between the parties, indicative of a complex web of
deceit, and unethical transactions where even civil
remedies may not be sustainable. Thus, the object of
this dispute, manifestly rife with mala fide intentions
of only recovering the tainted money by coercion
and threat of criminal proceedings, cannot be
allowed to proceed further and exploit the time and
resources of the law enforcement agency.”
8. Learned District Court is directed to take necessary
steps to refer the matter before the learned Mediator of the
District Mediation Center by fixing a date for appearance of the
parties to give effect to “Mediation for the Nation 2.0.”
9. Thereafter, learned Mediator of the District
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2775 of 2026(5) dt.01-04-2026
4/5
Mediation Center concerned shall make his/her best efforts to
settle the dispute amicably, also taking into account the law laid
down by the Apex Court in case of Deepak Kumar Shrivas
(supra) and submit his/her report before the concerned learned
District Court, well within a period of three months, till then, no
coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in
connection with the aforesaid case.
10. In case, the parties resolve their dispute amicably
or arrive at a mutual settlement, in light of the law laid down by
the Apex Court as referredabove, the petitioner is required to be
released on pre-arrest bail on such terms and conditions as the
learned District Court deems it fit and proper.
11. In case of failure on the part of the petitioner to
appear on or before 08.04.2026 before the learned District Court
or any date fixed by the learned Mediator, the interim protection
granted to the petitioner shall automatically lose its force.
12. In case, it is deliberate on the part of the
informant to reconcile, then in that case, the interim protection
granted to the petitioner shall continue and the trial shall
proceed in accordance with law.
13. In case, the parties fail to reconcile, then in that
case, parties may avail appropriate remedy. Then also, petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2775 of 2026(5) dt.01-04-2026
5/5
is directed to be released on pre-arrest bail on such terms and
conditions as the learned District Court deems it fit and proper.
12. With aforesaid direction and observation, the
present application stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…